g 


Synoptic 

is 
Brotilem    s 

g 

5! 


©orcmus  aim?  ©ape* 


ikd&Bi&g^ 


OCT  2A  1915 
Victim  &$ 


•  4.W4  14 

Scittoa; 


THE 
SYNOPTIC   PROBLEM 


BY 

DOREMUS  ALMY  HAYES 

Professor  of 
New  Testament  Interpretation  in  Garrett  Biblical  Institute 


NEW    YORK:  EATON    &    MAINS 
CINCINNATI:  JENNINGS  &  GRAHAM 


Copyright,  1912,  by 
DOREMUS  ALMY  HAYES 


iflarcus;  B.  Puell 

AN   AUTHORITY   IN  THIS   FIELD 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword 7 

I.  Definitions 9 

II.  Resemblances 12 

III.  Differences 24 

IV.  Responsibilities 38 

V.  Aids 45 

VI.  Theories 52 

VII.  Conclusions 62 

VIII.  The  Peculiar  Value  of  Mark 70 

IX.  The  Peculiar  Value  of  Matthew.  .  74 

X.  The  Peculiar  Value  of  Luke 79 

XI.  Bibliography 86 


FOREWORD 

This  little  book  is  an  attempt  to 
boil  down  into  briefest  compass  the 
result  of  the  reading  of  many  thousands 
of  pages  on  this  subject.  It  is  written 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  cannot  take 
the  time  to  master  the  voluminous  lit- 
erature in  this  field,  but  who  would  like 
to  have  some  notion  as  to  what  it  is  all 
about.  The  intelligent  layman  and 
the  busy  pastor  may  find  some  of  their 
questions  answered  in  these  pages,  and 
if  enough  interest  should  be  roused  to 
lead  to  the  reading  of  any  of  the 
books  mentioned  in  the  brief  bibliog- 
raphy at  the  close,  the  time  thus 
given  will  be  found  to  be  well  spent. 
We  have  compiled  these  facts  from 
many  sources.  We  have  had  the 
original  Greek  before  us  at  every 
point.  Some  of  the  translations  we 
have  made  for  ourselves. 


8  FOREWORD 

The  Bible  is  the  most  interesting  of 
all  the  books.  Its  problems  attract  us 
as  well  as  its  promises.  It  piques  our 
curiosity  and  stimulates  our  intellect, 
as  well  as  warms  our  heart  and  min- 
isters to  our  spiritual  life.  We  are 
interested  in  all  the  facts  concerning 
it.  Some  of  them  are  set  forth  here. 
It  will  do  us  good  to  know  the  facts, 
and  we  are  free  to  draw  our  own  con- 
clusions from  them.  All  the  facts  we 
have  found  have  helped  us  rather 
than  hindered  us  in  the  proper  appre- 
ciation and  reverence  of  the  Book. 
We  are  confident  that  with  all  others 
who  love  the  truth  even  as  they  love 
the  God  of  truth  it  will  be  just  as  it 
has  been  with  ourselves. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 
I.  Definitions 

It  will  be  well  to  define  our  terms 
first  of  all: 

1.  The  Gospels  are  the  four  narra- 
tives of  the  life  of  Christ  found  in  our 
New  Testament. 

2.  The  synoptic  Gospels  are  the 
first  three  Gospels  as  distinguished 
from  the  fourth.  They  are  given  this 
title  because  they  present  the  same 
general  view  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
According  to  the  composition  of  the 
Greek  word  avvoipig  they  "view"  that 
life  "together."  They  resemble  each 
other  sufficiently  to  form  a  related 
group.  The  fourth  Gospel  is  so  pe- 
culiar that  it  cannot  be  put  into  this 
group.  Expressed  in  homely  phrase, 
the  synoptic  Gospels  are  like  birds  of 

9 


10        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

a  feather  which  flock  together;  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  like  an  eagle  which 
flies  alone. 

3.  The  problem  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  is  furnished  in  the  fact  that 
while  they  remarkably  resemble  each 
other  in  general,  they  strangely  differ 
with  each  other  in  particulars.  Writ- 
ten in  parallel  columns  they  are  seen 
to  present  curiously  intermingled  phe- 
nomena of  apparent  originality  and 
seeming  plagiarism.  At  various  points 
each  appears  to  be  independent,  while 
in  other  places  all  appear  to  be  inter- 
dependent. Their  narratives  of  inci- 
dents and  discourses  now  approach 
each  other,  now  coalesce,  now  sep- 
arate. They  are  now  identical  and 
now  different.  Their  relationship  is 
sometimes  clear  and  sometimes  ob- 
scure. It  is  like  a  series  of  dissolving 
pictures  in  which  one  unexpectedly 
replaces  the  other:  and  it  is  difficult  to 
define  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  any 
of  them.    There  must  be  some  reason 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        11 

for  these  things.  There  must  be 
some  explanation  for  these  shifting 
phenomena. 

Why  are  there  these  parallelisms  and 
these  divergences  ?  Why  are  the  Syn- 
optics so  like  each  other  and  yet  so 
unlike?  The  problem  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  is  to  find  a  satisfactory  and  a 
sufficient  answer  to  these  questions. 
It  is  the  most  difficult  problem  of 
present-day  New  Testament  criticism. 
Possibly  as  much  has  been  written 
about  it  as  about  any  other  problem 
in  the  history  of  literature,  but  it  has 
not  been  solved  as  yet.  It  is  the  great 
enigma  of  the  beginning  of  our  New 
Testament  canon,  as  the  Apocalypse 
is  the  great  enigma  of  its  close.  All  of 
the  solutions  of  the  synoptic  problem 
thus  far  offered  are  largely  guesses  in 
the  dark.  None  of  them  is  absolutely 
satisfactory.  None  of  them  may  be 
more  than  partly  right. 

In  some  places  the  Synoptics  are 
identical  in  their  statements;  in  other 


12       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

places  they  are  like  each  other  5  in 
still  other  places  they  differ  with  each 
other;  in  a  few  instances  they  contra- 
dict each  other.  These  are  the  facts. 
What  theory  of  their  origin  will  ac- 
count for  these  facts?  That  is  our 
problem.  We  will  look  at  it  a  little 
more  closely  now. 

II.  Resemblances 

The  resemblances  in  the  Synoptics 
consist : 

1.  In  absolute  identity  of  language. 
This  is  never  very  extensive,  but  it  is 
sufficiently  striking  when  it  occurs. 
(1)  In  one  quotation  from  the  Old 
Testament,  found  in  all  the  synop- 
tists,  the  identity  of  language  reaches 
in  the  original  through  fifteeh  con- 
secutive words.  Here  Matthew  and 
Mark  agree  in  saying,  "The  Lord 
said  to  my  Lord,  Sit  upon  my  right 
hand,  until  I  may  place  thy  enemies 
under  thy  feet,"  and  Luke  agrees  with 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        13 

them  for  fifteen  words,  but  diverges 
from  them  in  the  end  in  order  to 
agree  with  the  Septuagint  which  reads, 
"until  I  may  place  thy  enemies  as  the 
footstool  of  thy  feet"  (Matt.  22.  44; 
Mark  12.  36;  Luke  20.  42,  43). 
Another  striking  instance  of  agree- 
ment between  the  three  synoptists 
through  fourteen  consecutive  words 
is  in  the  quotation  from  Isaiah,  "A 
voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
Prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make 
his  paths  straight,,,  and  it  is  remark- 
able that  in  this  case  they  all  agree  in 
misquoting  the  Septuagint  which  reads, 
"Make  straight  the  paths  of  our  God," 
and  this  is  the  correct  rendering  of  the 
Hebrew  original  (Matt.  3.  3;  Mark 
1.  3;  Luke  3.  4). 

(2)  In  one  case  in  the  narrative  por- 
tion of  the  synoptists  absolute  identity, 
including  the  order  of  the  words  in  the 
original  Greek,  extends  through  the 
twelve  words,  "the  five  loaves,  and  the 
two  fishes,  having  looked  up  to  heaven, 


14        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

he  blessed"  (Matt.  14.  19  •  Mark  6.  41  \ 
Luke  9.  16).  In  no  case  in  the  narra- 
tives does  such  agreement  extend 
through  more  than  twelve  words,  and 
it  seldom  goes  beyond  four  or  six 
words. 

(3)  In  reporting  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  the  synoptists  will  sometimes 
agree  in  as  many  as  eight  successive 
words,  but  there  are  not  half  a  dozen 
instances  where  absolute  agreement  is 
maintained  through  five  consecutive 
words!  If  they  all  quoted  from  the 
Old  Testament  the  same  text  and  the 
same  passage,  and  if  they  all  quoted 
correctly,  we  would  have  an  absolute 
agreement  at  these  points.  Such  ab- 
solute agreement  is  never  found 
through  more  than  fifteen  words.  If 
they  all  reported  the  same  words  of 
Jesus,  and  reported  them  exactly,  we 
would  have  perfect  agreement  in  these 
portions  of  their  narratives.  Such 
agreement  never  occurs  extending 
through  more  than  eight  consecutive 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        15 

words.  This  is  a  strange  fact.  How 
can  we  account  for  these  resemblances 
in  absolute  identity  of  phraseology,  ex- 
tending for  a  short  measure  only  and 
then  ceasing  suddenly  and  for  no 
apparent  good  reason? 

2.  There  are  certain  very  peculiar 
words  found  in  our  New  Testament. 
Possibly  the  most  puzzling  of  them  all 
is  the  word  translated  "daily"  in  the 
so-called  Lord's  Prayer,  in  the  peti- 
tion, "Give  us  this  day  our  daily 
bread."  No  one  has  ever  been  certain 
that  that  word  was  rightly  translated. 
No  one  is  sure  of  its  meaning  to-day. 
Scholarship  has  always  been  divided 
on  the  question.  No  sufficient  data 
exist  upon  the  basis  of  which  one 
may  come  to  any  final  conclusion.  The 
word  is  not  found  in  ancient  literature 
before  the  time  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  occurs  in  only  this  one  connection 
in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  never 
found  in  later  literature,  except  in 
quotations    from    this    source.      The 


16       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

Greek  and  Latin  fathers  never  could 
agree  upon  its  meaning,  and  modern 
scholars  have  no  reason  to  agree  which 
they  had  not. 

Now,  if  such  a  rare  and  absolutely 
unique  expression  as  this  were  found 
in  only  one  of  our  synoptists,  we 
might  think  that  he  had  coined  it  for 
his  own  use;  but,  strangely  enough, 
this  strange  word  is  found  in  both 
Matthew  and  Luke.  How  can  we  ac- 
count for  that  fact?  Did  Jesus  use 
some  Aramaic  term  which  had  been 
translated  into  this  unusual  and  un- 
couth Greek  expression  by  some  one 
not  well  acquainted  with  the  language, 
and  did  both  Matthew  and  Luke  re- 
peat this  oral  or  written  translation? 
At  many  other  points  we  come  upon 
peculiarities  of  language  which  are 
common  to  two  or  to  three  of  the 
synoptists,  and  suggest  a  common 
source  and  raise  the  same  question. 

3.  Sometimes  a  narrative  is  told  in 
the  same  method  by  the  three  synop- 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        17 

tists,  when  that  method  is  not  one 
which  would  naturally  occur  to  three 
independent   writers.      Take   the   ac- 
count of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic 
at  Capernaum  for  an  example.     The 
synoptists  all  tell  us  how  Jesus  turned 
upon  the  scribes  on  that  occasion,  and 
how  in  the  midst  of  his  address  to 
them  he  suddenly  halted  in  the  mid- 
dle of  a  sentence  and  commanded  the 
paralytic  to  rise  and  go  home.    At  the 
same  point  they  all  insert  the  same 
parenthesis,  "Then  saith  he  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,"  "He  saith  to  the  sick  of 
the  palsy,"  "He  said  unto  him  that  was 
palsied"  (Matt.  9.  65  Mark  2. 11;  Luke 
5.  24).    It  is  remarkable  that  the  three 
should  insert  the  parenthesis  at  ex- 
actly the  same  place  in  the  broken 
narrative.    That  one  writer  should  in- 
dependently choose  this  method  of  tell- 
ing the  story  would  be  possible.    That 
two  should  agree  in  it  independently 
would  seem  improbable.     That  three 
should  do  so  is  next  to  impossible. 


18        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

In  the  account  of  the  cure  of  the 
Gerasene  demoniac  there  is  a  similar 
parenthesis,  thrown  in  to  explain  what 
has  gone  before.  First  we  have  the 
demoniac's  plea,  "I  adjure  thee  by 
God,  torment  me  not,"  and  then  the 
reason  for  that  adjuration  is  appended: 
"For  he  said  unto  him,  Come  forth, 
thou  unclean  spirit,  out  of  the  man." 
In  Mark  and  in  Luke  we  have  the  same 
inverted  order;  first  the  remonstrance 
and  then  the  command  (Mark  5. 
7,  8;  Luke  8.  28,  29).  The  natural 
order  of  narration  would  have  been  to 
give  the  command  first  and  the  re- 
sulting remonstrance  afterward.  That 
one  should  choose  to  invert  the  order 
would  seem  strange.  That  two  should 
agree  in  doing  it  independently  would 
seem  most  improbable.  Other  such 
instances  might  be  given.  They  all  go 
to  prove  that  these  stories,  for  some 
reason  or  another,  had  taken  a  stereo- 
typed form,  which  is  reproduced  by 
each  narrator. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        19 

4.  In  the  main  the  synoptists  follow 
the  same  order  of  events.  They  re- 
semble each  other  in  the  chronological 
arrangement  of  their  material.  Some- 
times we  have  a  series  of  events  in  one 
of  them,  leading  up  to  a  crisis  in  the 
career  of  Jesus,  and  then  suddenly 
we  seem  to  lose  the  thread  of  the 
narrative;  and  we  turn  to  another  of 
the  synoptists  to  see  what  happened 
next,  only  to  find  that  he  has  failed 
us  at  the  very  same  point.  Then  we 
turn  to  the  third,  sure  that  one  at 
least  will  tell  us  what  we  so  much 
would  like  to  know,  and  we  find  that 
the  same  period  of  silence  intervenes 
in  his  narrative  at  exactly  the  same 
juncture  of  events.  Then,  after  a  cer- 
tain interval  of  days  and  months,  the 
three  will  take  up  the  story  again  at 
exactly  the  same  point.  That  is  what 
we  mean  by  saying  that  the  synop- 
tists in  general  have  the  same  order. 
That  order  would  seem  to  be  fixed  in 
the  Gospel  according  to  Mark.     Fre- 


20        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

quently  when  Matthew  diverges  from 
the  order  of  Mark,  Luke  will  be  found 
to  agree  with  Mark;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  when  Luke  diverges  from  Mark's 
order  at  any  point,  Matthew  fre- 
quently will  follow  Mark  in  that  place. 
Matthew  and  Luke  never  agree  in 
transposing  the  order  of  Mark. 

5.  What  has  just  been  said  leads  us 
to  the  next  statement.  The  syn- 
optists  strangely  agree  in  the  selec- 
tion of  their  material.  The  life  of 
Jesus  was  the  most  interesting  and  the 
most  remarkable  life  ever  known  to 
the  race.  It  was  only  thirty-three 
years  in  length;  but  out  of  those 
superlatively  important  years  our  Gos- 
pels possibly  give  us  incidents  from 
only  forty  days.  There  must  have 
been  many  other  days  just  as  full  of 
interest  and  excitement  as  those  which 
they  recorded.  Out  of  the  multitudes 
of  the  days  why  have  they  decided  to 
tell  us  about  only  forty  of  them  ?  If 
one  had  chosen  these  forty  days  for 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        21 

his  record,  why  did  not  another  choose 
forty  other  days  just  as  wonderful, 
and  the  third  enrich  our  knowledge 
with  the  account  of  still  new  and 
equally  marvelous  material?  It  is  a 
strange  fact  that  they  should  choose, 
for  the  most  part,  to  tell  us  about  the 
same  things.  They  all  mention  the 
fact  that  there  were  numberless  unre- 
corded miracles,  and  yet  each  of  the 
synoptists  tells  about  much  the  same 
list  of  miracles  that  is  to  be  found  in 
the  others.  When  we  turn  from  the 
synoptists  to  John  we  find  a  new  list 
of  miracles  there  and  we  see  at  once 
that  these  new  miracles  were  just  as 
important,  or,  possibly  in  some  cases, 
even  more  important  than  any  to  be 
found  in  the  synoptists.  The  greatest 
of  all  the  miracles,  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  from  the  dead,  is  found  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  alone.  No  one  of  our 
synoptists  has  mentioned  it. 

The  closing  statement  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  to  the  effect  that  there  are 


22        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

also  many  other  things  which  Jesus 
did,  the  which  if  they  should  be  writ- 
ten every  one,  it  might  be  supposed 
that  even  the  world  itself  would  not 
contain  the  books  that  should  be 
written.  There  was  an  abundance  of 
material  known  to  the  eyewitnesses  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Lord  which  is  now 
lost  forever.  Why  did  not  our  synop- 
tists  do  as  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  did,  and  each  of  them  give  us 
an  original  and  fresh  putting  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  with  fresh  material  chosen 
from  this  inexhaustible  abundance  of 
supply,  instead  of  telling  the  same 
story  over  in  much  the  same  way  ? 

We  know  so  little  of  what  Jesus  did. 
We  should  like  to  know  so  much  more. 
We  know  so  little  of  what  Jesus  said. 
We  would  esteem  every  added  word 
that  we  could  be  assured  fell  from  his 
lips  as  an  invaluable  treasure.  Yet 
all  the  recorded  sayings  of  Jesus  could 
be  spoken  in  six  hours.  What  a 
meager  measure  of  the  words  of  life 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        23 

that  is!  Six  hours  of  golden  speech, 
and  over  all  the  rest  of  the  life  a  pall 
of  perfect  silence!  We  have  learned 
to  content  ourselves  with  what  we 
have,  and  yet  why  did  our  synoptists 
choose  to  give  us  so  much  material 
common  to  all  when  each  of  them 
might  have  added  so  much  that  would 
have  been  peculiar  to  them  and  made  us 
so  much  the  richer  in  our  possession  of 
the  facts  concerning  the  life  and  the 
truths  enunciated  in  the  teachings  of 
Jesus  ? 

The  synoptists  resemble  each  other, 
sometimes  in  absolute  identity  of  ex- 
pression, sometimes  in  peculiarities  of 
language,  sometimes  in  the  method  fol- 
lowed in  an  individual  narration,  in 
general  in  the  order  of  their  chronicles, 
and  in  the  selection  of  their  facts. 
What  reason  is  there  for  these  like- 
nesses? Evidently,  the  individuality 
of  each  of  these  evangelists  has  been 
overruled  by  some  external  norm  to 
produce    these    conformities     to    one 


24        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

model     and    these     uniformities     of 
result. 

III.  Differences 

To  get  the  synoptic  problem  clearly 
before  us  we  must  also  look  at  the 
differences  between  them.  )It  would 
be  comparatively  easy  to  account  for 
their  resemblances  on  the  ground  of 
the  influence  of  an  external  and  con- 
trolling norm,  but  the  problem  be- 
comes more  complicated  when  we  take 
their  differences  into  consideration. 
The  question  at  once  arises,  If  there 
were  any  such  controlling  norm  as 
their  resemblances  would  indicate,  why 
has  it  not  controlled  more  completely? 
What  reason  can  be  suggested  for  such 
divergences  as  we  shall  now  consider  ? 

1.  They  differ  in  the  transposition  of 
sentences  and  paragraphs  in  the  ac- 
count both  of  incidents  and  of  sayings 
in  the  life  of  Jesus.  For  example, 
Matthew  gives  the  order  of  the  temp- 
tations of  Jesus  in  the  wilderness  as, 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        25 

first,  the  turning  of  stones  into  bread; 
and,  second,  the  casting  of  himself 
down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple; 
and,  third,  the  worshiping  of  Satan  for 
the  kingdoms  of  the  world.  Luke 
gives  us  the  same  story  of  the  tempta- 
tions, but  he  puts  the  third  of  Mat- 
thew's list  second,  and  the  second  he 
puts  last.  There  is  no  apparent  reason 
for  such  a  transposition.  If  this  nar- 
rative were  intended  to  be  taken  as  a 
literal  narrative  of  facts,  then,  of 
course,  both  Matthew  and  Luke  could 
not  be  correct  in  their  order  of  the 
events. 

In  Matthew's  narrative  Jesus  proph- 
esies that  the  men  of  Nineveh  shall 
condemn  the  men  of  his  generation 
and  then  goes  on  to  say  the  same 
thing  of  the  queen  of  the  south. 
Luke  repeats  these  sayings,  but  re- 
verses their  order.  ,  In  the  account  of 
the  Last  Supper  Mark  and  Matthew 
tell  about  the  giving  of  the  bread  and 
then   the   giving  of   the   cup   to   the 


26        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

disciples.  Luke  introduces  a  giving  of 
the  cup  before  the  breaking  of  the 
bread,  and  connects  with  it  some  of 
the  language  assigned  by  the  other 
synoptists  to  the  cup  given  after  the 
Supper.  These  seem  to  be  strange  and 
unexpected  and  unaccountable  diver- 
gences. Can  anyone  give  any  suffi- 
cient and  satisfactory  explanation  of 
them? 

2.  There  are  strange  omissions  in 
each  of  the  synoptists.  If  they  were 
following  a  common  source,  how  are 
we  to  account  for  them  ?  We  are  told 
that  Luke  was  a  Gentile,  and  that  he 
took  every  opportunity  to  emphasize 
any  portion  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
which  made  clear  the  fact  that  his 
gospel  was  a  gospel  for  the  Gentiles 
as  well  as  for  the  Jews.  If  that  be 
true,  how  does  it  happen  that  Mark 
tells  us  that  Jesus  taught  the  people 
in  the  temple,  saying,  "Is  it  not  writ- 
ten, My  house  shall  be  called  a  house 
of  prayer  for  all  the  Gentiles"  (Mark 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        27 

11.  17),  and  Luke  repeats  the  saying, 
"My  house  shall  be  a  house  of  prayer," 
but  omits  the  significant  phrase  "for 
aU  the  Gentiles"?  (Luke  19.  46.) 
We  would  have  supposed  that  Luke 
would  be  sure  to  put  that  in,  yet  he 
omits  it. 

In  Mark  we  read,  "The  gospel  must 
first  be  preached  unto  all  the  Gentiles" 
(Mark  13.  10),  and  in  Matthew  we 
read  the  same  statement:  "This  gos- 
pel of  the  kingdom  shall  be  preached 
in  the  whole  world  for  a  testimony 
unto  all  the  Gentiles"  (Matt.  24.  14). 
Then  we  turn  to  Luke  and  we  find  that 
he  gives  the  same  discourse  of  Jesus 
concerning  the  last  things,  and  Luke's 
account  parallels  that  of  Mark  and 
Matthew  at  almost  every  point,  and 
yet,  strangely  enough,  when  we  come 
to  this  statement  concerning  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all  of  the 
Gentiles  we  find  that  Luke  omits  it. 
We  would  have  thought  that  there 
was  no  saying  in  that  discourse  which 


28        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

Luke  would  have  been  so  eager  to 
record  as  that  one.  How  can  we  ex- 
plain such  an  omission?  In  Mark 
7.  31  we  are  told  that  Jesus  made  a 
journey  through  the  Gentile  cities  of 
Decapolis,  and  Mark  gives  some  ac- 
count of  the  things  that  happened 
there.  Luke  omits  all  mention  of  this 
journey  and  of  these  things.  How 
strange  that  is!  He  must  have  been 
interested  in  these  happenings  in  a 
very  special  degree.  Why  does  he 
make  no  mention  of  them,  Gentile  as 
he  probably  was? 

Compare  what  Matthew  calls  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  what 
Luke  calls  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain. 
They  seem  to  be  the  same  discourse. 
Yet  Matthew  says  that  Jesus  went  up 
into  the  mountain  and  sat  down  to 
preach  that  sermon  (Matt.  5.  1),  and 
Luke  says  that  Jesus  came  down  and 
stood  on  a  level  place  while  he  talked 
(Luke  6.  17).  In  Matthew  the  sermon 
begins    with    eight     beatitudes.      In 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        29 

Luke  there  are  but  four,  correspond- 
ing to  Matthew's  first,  second,  fourth, 
and  eighth;  and  the  first  three  of  these 
seem  to  be  so  materially  changed  that 
we  can  scarcely  recognize  their  spirit- 
ual character.  Then  Luke  adds  four 
woes  corresponding  to  his  four  beati- 
tudes, which  have  no  parallel  in  Mat- 
thew. What  seems  to  be  a  single  dis- 
course in  Matthew  we  find  to  be 
scattered  in  fragments  throughout 
Luke's  narrative  from  the  sixth  to  the 
sixteenth  chapters.  Following  the 
order  of  the  discourse  in  Matthew,  we 
find  the  corresponding  sayings  in  Luke 
first  in  the  sixth  chapter,  then  in  the 
sixteenth,  then  in  the  twelfth,  then  in 
the  sixth,  then  in  the  eleventh,  then  in 
the  twelfth,  then  in  the  eleventh,  then 
in  the  sixteenth,  then  in  the  twelfth, 
then  in  the  sixth,  then  in  the  eleventh, 
then  in  the  sixth,  then  in  the  thirteenth, 
then  in  the  sixth,  then  in  the  thir- 
teenth, then  in  the  sixth  again.  Has 
Luke  given  us  the  proper  setting  for 


30        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

these  several  fragments  of  discourse, 
or  did  Jesus  repeat  himself  and  gather 
up  into  one  discourse  what  he  had 
said  on  several  other  occasions  ?  Shall 
we  trust  Matthew  alone,  or  Luke 
alone,  or  both  ? 

3.  A  third  difference  is  in  the  inser- 
tion of  long  narratives.  The  best 
example  is  to  be  found  in  what  is  usually 
called  "the  greater  insertion"  in  Luke. 
In  the  middle  of  his  narrative  Luke 
has  given  us  a  large  section,  9.  45  to 
18.  30,  the  most  of  the  material  in 
which  is  peculiar  to  him.  The  other 
Gospels  pass  over  these  events  in 
silence,  and  yet  some  of  them  are 
among  the  most  remarkable  in  our 
Lord's  ministry.  Altogether,  about 
three  fifths  of  the  contents  of  Luke 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  other 
Gospels.  Stroud  made  a  mathemati- 
cal presentation  of  the  facts  in  his 
familiar  table.  If  the  contents  of  the 
several  Gospels  be  represented  by  100, 
then  Mark  has  7  peculiarities  and  93 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        31 

coincidences.  Matthew  has  42  peculiar- 
ities and  58  coincidences.  Luke  has  59 
peculiarities  and  41  coincidences.  This 
table  shows  that  in  Mark  there  is  very- 
little  which  is  not  paralleled  in  the 
other  Gospels,  while  more  than  half  of 
the  contents  of  Matthew  is  repeated  in 
the  other  Synoptics,  and  more  than 
two  fifths  of  the  contents  of  Luke. 
Nevertheless,  it  remains  true  that  in 
each  of  the  Gospels  there  are  inser- 
tions of  narratives  and  discourses  not 
to  be  found  in  the  others. 

4.  There  are  puzzling  differences  in 
the  report  of  the  same  incident  or  the 
same  saying.  In  the  storm  on  the 
lake  the  disciples  wake  Jesus  with  a 
cry  of  terror.  Mark  reports  it,  "Mas- 
ter, carest  thou  not  that  we  perish?" 
(Mark  4.  38.)  Matthew  records  that 
they  said,  "Save,  Lord,  we  perish" 
(Matt.  8.  25),  and  Luke  changes  the 
speech  again,  recording  it,  "Master, 
master,  we  perish"  (Luke  8.  24). 
These  are  not  important  differences. 


32        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

We  note  them  simply  as  examples  of 
the  slight  changes  in  the  narratives 
found  on  every  page.  In  the  saying 
of  Jesus,  "It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to 
go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle,"  we 
find  one  word  for  "eye"  in  Mark  and 
another  in  Matthew  and  Luke;  and 
we  find  one  word  for  "needle"  in  Luke 
and  another  in  Matthew  and  Mark. 
In  Matthew  and  Mark  we  read  that 
Herod  said  to  others,  "This  is  John 
the  Baptist:  he  is  risen  from  the 
dead."  In  Luke  we  read  that  others 
said  this  to  Herod.  In  the  account  of 
the  crucifixion  Mark  says  that  one 
ran  and  filled  a  sponge  full  of  vinegar, 
and  put  it  on  a  reed,  and  gave  it  to 
Jesus  to  drink,  saying,  "Let  be;  let 
us  see  whether  Elijah  cometh  to  take 
him  down"  (Mark  15.  36).  In  Mat- 
thew we  find  the  same  account,  but 
this  speech,  "Let  be:  let  us  see  whether 
Elijah  cometh  to  save  him,"  is  put 
into  the  mouth  of  the  bystanders 
(Matt.   27.   49).     Examples   of   such 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        33 

differences    could    be    multiplied    in- 
definitely. 

5.  Sometimes  statements  are  made 
by  one  of  the  synoptists  which  would 
lead  us  to  mistaken  conclusions  if 
another  of  the  synoptists  did  not  set 
us  right  in  the  matter.  For  example, 
if  we  had  only  Matthew's  account  of 
the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus,  we  would 
suppose  that  Joseph  and  Mary  went  to 
Nazareth  only  after  the  return  from 
Egypt  and  in  consequence  of  a  divine 
warning  in  a  dream.  However,  from 
Luke  we  learn  that  Nazareth  was  the 
home  city  of  the  parents  of  Jesus,  that 
they  left  it  and  went  to  Bethlehem  only 
for  the  census,  and  that  after  the 
presentation  in  the  temple  they  re- 
turned to  Nazareth  again.  If  we  had 
Luke's  account  of  the  resurrection  ap- 
pearances of  Jesus,  and  no  other,  we 
would  have  supposed  that  all  of  these 
were  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusa- 
lem; but  Matthew  tells  us  plainly  of 
an  appearance  in  Galilee  as  well. 


34       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

6.  The  synoptists  sometimes  con- 
tradict each  other.  In  Luke  3.  3  we 
read  that  John  the  Baptist  came  into 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan. 
In  Matt.  3.  5  the  statement  is  that  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan  went 
out  unto  John.  In  Mark  6.  8,  9  Jesus 
expressly  permits  the  twelve  to  carry 
staves  and  to  go  shod  with  sandals. 
In  Matt.  10.  10  Jesus  just  as  ex- 
pressly prohibits  these  things  to  the 
twelve.  It  is  evidently  the  same  dis- 
course, and  it  is  seemingly  impossible 
for  both  evangelists  to  be  correct. 
Jesus  either  permitted  or  prohibited 
these  things.  He  could  not  have  done 
both  at  one  and  the  same  time.  Mark 
tells  us  that  Herodias  desired  to  kill 
John,  but  she  could  not  because  Herod 
feared  him.  Matthew  says  that 
Herod  desired  to  kill  John  and  did 
not,  because  he  feared  the  multitude. 
These  statements  are  not  necessarily 
contradictory,  although  they  are  ap- 
parently so. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        35 

Matthew  and  Mark  both  say  that 
the  transfiguration  took  place  six  days 
after  the  events  just  recorded  by 
them.  Luke  explicitly  says  that  it 
took  place  eight  days  after  these 
things.  Matthew  says  that  Jesus  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  pray  after  the 
manner  which  he  records  in  his  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount.  Luke  records  this 
prayer  upon  another  occasion  and  not 
at  all  after  that  manner.  He  omits 
two  of  the  petitions  found  in  Matthew 
and  changes  two  of  the  others.  Mat- 
thew would  have  us  pray  after  one 
manner,  Luke  would  have  us  pray 
differently;  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
most  of  us  repeat  the  prayer  in  a 
manner  different  from  that  prescribed 
by  either  of  them. 

In  Mark  Jairus  tells  Jesus  that  his 
daughter  is  at  the  point  of  death 
(Mark  5.  23).  In  Matthew  Jairus 
says  that  she  is  already  dead  (Matt. 
9.  18).  In  Matt.  8.  5  we  read  that 
the  centurion  himself  came  to  Jesus. 


36        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

In  Luke  7.  3  we  read  that  he  sent 
unto  Jesus  some  of  the  Jews.  Mat- 
thew seems  to  put  the  profaning  of 
the  Sabbath  by  plucking  and  eating 
ears  of  corn  and  by  curing  the  man 
with  the  withered  hand  on  the  same 
Sabbath.  Luke  explicitly  says  that  the 
miracle  of  the  cure  was  performed  on 
another  Sabbath.  In  Mark  Peter's 
denial  follows  the  trial  before  the 
Sanhedrin,  while  in  Luke  it  precedes 
it.  Mark  says  that  the  women  came 
to  the  tomb  when  the  Sabbath  was 
past.  Matthew  says  that  they  came 
late  on  the  Sabbath.  Luke  says  that 
they  came  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  at  early  dawn. 

Mark  tells  us  that  as  Jesus  went  out 
from  Jericho  the  blind  beggar,  Barti- 
mseus,  was  healed.  Matthew  says  that 
as  they  went  out  from  Jericho  two 
blind  men  were  healed.  Luke  says 
that  as  Jesus  drew  nigh  unto  Jericho  a 
certain  blind  man  was  healed,  and 
from  his  account  we  conclude  that  it 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        37 

was  the  man  whom  Mark  called  Bar- 
timseus.  Why  does  Matthew  say  there 
were  two  blind  men,  while  Mark  and 
Luke  mention  only  one?  Why  do 
Mark  and  Matthew  locate  the  healing 
at  the  time  of  leaving  Jericho,  while 
Luke  puts  it  at  the  time  of  entering 
the  city  ?  This  list  of  apparent  and 
real  contradictions  might  be  increased. 
However,  none  of  the  other  cases  are 
of  any  greater  importance  than  these 
we  have  instanced;  and  all  will  agree 
that  particulars  like  these  are  not 
essential  to  the  conception  of  the  life 
and  work  of  Christ.  The  important 
fact  in  the  last  example,  for  instance, 
is  the  fact  of  the  healing  and  not  the 
exact  spot  at  which  it  took  place. 

We  have  now  seen  that  the  synop- 
tists  follow  the  same  general  order  of 
narration,  repeat  each  other  in  much 
or  most  of  their  material,  sometimes 
follow  the  same  strange  method  of 
telling  their  story,  sometimes  repro- 
duce certain  peculiarities  of  language, 


38        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

and  sometimes  are  not  merely  parallel 
but  absolutely  identical  in  their  ex- 
pressions. On  the  other  hand,  we 
have  seen  that  they  do  not  always 
follow  the  same  order  in  their  narra- 
tives, and  each  of  them  adds  to  the 
narratives  of  the  others,  and  each  of 
them  omits  portions  of  the  narratives 
of  the  others,  and  each  of  them  trans- 
poses the  narratives  of  the  others,  and 
they  give  different  accounts  of  the 
same  event  or  the  same  saying,  and 
they  apparently  and  really  contradict 
each  other  at  certain  minor  points. 
How  are  we  to  explain  these  strange 
phenomena?    That  is  the  problem. 

IV.  Responsibilities 

1.  Let  us  say,  first  of  all,  that  Jesus 
is  not  directly  responsible  for  the 
record  found  in  our  Synoptics  or  for 
the  form  in  which  that  record  has 
been  made.  He  never  interested  him- 
self in  such  things.  He  himself  never 
wrote   anything   while   he   was   upon 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        39 

the  earth,  as  far  as  we  know,  except 
upon  one  occasion  when  he  wrote  with 
his  finger  in  the  dust  upon  the  temple 
floor  something  or  other  of  great  mo- 
ment to  those  who  were  looking  on; 
but  we  can  only  guess  what  it  was, 
and  we  know  that  that  writing  was 
obliterated  and  lost  long  ago.  Jesus 
never  dictated  anything  to  anyone  for 
later  publication.  We  do  not  know 
that  anyone  ever  thought  of  taking 
notes  of  any  of  his  sayings  or  doings 
while  he  was  still  with  them.  We  read 
in  one  place  that  his  disciples  remem- 
bered that  he  had  said  certain  things 
only  after  his  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Evidently,  they  had  no  written 
notes  from  which  to  refresh  their 
memories  of  these  things. 

We  do  not  gather  from  our  records 
that  Jesus  ever  took  any  special  pains 
to  impress  any  particular  phraseology 
upon  the  minds  of  his  followers.  Pos- 
sibly the  formulation  of  the  so-called 
Lord's  Prayer  might  stand  as  a  single 


40        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

example  of  that  sort;  and  we  have  seen 
how  in  that  case  we  have  very  dif- 
ferent versions  handed  down  to  us. 
Then,  if  Jesus  never  dictated  any- 
thing, nor  wrote  anything,  nor  taught 
anything  with  patient  repetitions  until 
he  was  sure  that  the  disciples  had  it 
committed  with  verbal  exactness  which 
would  insure  absolute  integrity  in  its 
preservation,  it  would  seem  that  he 
was  not  convinced  of  the  necessity  of 
any  such  thing,  and  was  willing  that 
the  record  of  his  life  and  words  should 
be  left  to  the  chances  of  imperfect 
remembrance  and  something  less  than 
infallible  accuracy  of  preservation.  At 
any  rate,  his  evident  negligence  to 
provide  any  written  memorials  in  his 
lifetime  will  clear  him  of  all  responsi- 
bility for  our  synoptic  Gospels  in  the 
exact  form  in  which  we  have  them 
to-day.  They  were  produced  after  his 
death.  The  responsibility  for  them 
must  lie  in  other  hands. 

2.  Let  us  say,  in  the  second  place, 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        41 

that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  respon- 
sible for  the  exact  form  in  which 
any  one  of  our  Synoptics  appears. 
The  doctrine  of  literal  verbal  inspira- 
tion must  surely  go  to  pieces  in  any 
candid  mind  before  the  parallel  col- 
umns of  Rushbrooke's  Synopticon,  or 
Wright's  Synopsis  of  the  Gospels  in 
Greek,  or  Thompson's  The  Synoptic 
Gospels.  The  minute  and  meaningless 
variations  in  these  parallel  columns 
would  convict  any  man  of  irreverence 
and  irrationality  if  he  could  be  proven 
to  be  individually  responsible  for  all 
of  them.  The  purposelessness  and  the 
frivolity  of  these  almost  numberless 
and  wholly  insignificant  changes  from 
one  tense  to  another,  and  from  one 
mood  to  another,  and  from  one  num- 
ber to  another,  and  from  one  case  to 
another  would  be  just  as  apparent  if 
the  responsibility  for  them  was  thrown 
back  upon  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  find 
one  order  of  words  in  one  synoptist, 
and  we  find  another  order  of  the  same 


42        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

words  in  another  synoptist.  No  pos- 
sible reason  can  be  assigned  for  the 
change  in  the  order.  The  meaning  is 
not  changed;  the  emphasis  is  not 
changed.  It  seems  to  be  a  purely 
arbitrary  choice  on  the  part  of  each 
writer.  That  is  an  explanation  of  the 
change;  but  if  a  single  personality 
were  made  responsible  for  both  forms, 
we  would  at  once  challenge  the  sense 
or  the  use  of  it.  We  have  too  much 
reverence  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  say 
he  is  responsible  for  these  textual, 
verbal,  literal,  minute,  and  unimpor- 
tant and  arbitrary  changes. 

3.  We  conclude,  then,  in  the  third 
place,  that  these  phenomena  both  of 
resemblance  and  of  divergence  in  the 
synoptists  must  rest,  in  the  last  analy- 
sis, upon  the  responsibility  and  the 
personality  of  the  individual  authors 
or  compilers.  In  the  Royal  Art  Mu- 
seum in  Berlin  there  is  a  picture  of 
Matthew  writing  his  Gospel.  He  is 
represented   as   an   old   man   with   a 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        43 

flowing  beard,  seated  at  a  desk  upon 
which  there  is  a  roll.  Behind  him 
stands  an  angel  who  reaches  over  his 
shoulder  and  guides  his  pen.  There  is 
a  look  of  intense  surprise  on  Matthew's 
face,  as  he  sees  what  his  own  hand 
guided  by  the  angel  has  written.  The 
picture  represents  a  once  common  con- 
ception of  inspiration;  the  arbitrary, 
mechanical  guidance  of  a  pen  rather 
than  the  inspiration  of  a  man.  God 
guides  no  man's  pen  as  the  mechanical 
instrument  of  his  will.  He  moves 
some  man's  heart,  and  the  man,  heart- 
stirred,  moves  his  own  pen  with  active 
brain  and  willing  hand.  God  does  not 
send  messages  through  human  tele- 
phones. His  words  are  not  repeated 
by  human  phonographs.  His  messen- 
gers are  not  impassive  instruments, 
but  active,  able,  free-will  agents,  called, 
and  responsive  to  the  call. 

Holy  men  of  old  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  not  as  the  primitive  chaos 
was  moved  by  that  same  Spirit,  not 


44        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

arbitrarily  but  voluntarily.  The  evo- 
lution and  the  realization  of  God's 
designs  in  them  were  conditioned  by 
their  human  intelligence  and  by  their 
human  receptivity.  God's  inspiration 
always  took  on  the  stamp  of  the  indi- 
viduality, of  the  human  personality 
which  appropriated  it.  God's  mes- 
sengers who  dwelt  among  men  have 
been  men  like  other  men.  His  greatest 
message  was  sent  through  his  Son  as 
a  man.  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John, 
Paul,  Jesus  were  not  abnormally  ap- 
propriated to  the  proclamation  of 
God's  will.  They  were  not  moved  in 
spite  of  themselves  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  they  were  not  moved  out  of  them- 
selves. The  Holy  Spirit  moved  them, 
and  in  their  own  personalities  they 
worked  out  the  designs  of  God. 
Human  individuality  is  apparent  on 
every  page  of  our  New  Testament,  and 
nowhere  more  so  than  in  the  pages  of 
the  synoptists.  These  men  differed  in 
mental  equipment  and  literary  style, 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        45 

and  in  personal  prejudices  and  prefer- 
ences, and  in  spiritual  insight,  and  in 
sources  of  information;  and  these  differ- 
ences appear  in  their  books,  while  the 
essential  purpose  is  the  same  in  all. 

Having  concluded  that  the  phe- 
nomena which  constitute  the  synoptic 
problem  must  find  their  ultimate  ex- 
planation in  the  individualities  of  the 
authors  or  compilers  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels,  we  are  still  far  from  having 
disposed  of  our  difficulties.  The  next 
question  is,  How  does  it  happen  that 
these  individuals  have  composed  or 
compiled  Gospels  in  which  these 
strange  resemblances  and  differences 
exist  ? 

V.  Aids 

1.  Luke's  Preface.  Matthew  and 
Mark  have  told  us  nothing  at  all 
about  the  method  of  their  procedure 
in  writing  their  books.  Luke,  how- 
ever, has  written  a  preface  to  his 
narrative,   in  which  he  makes  some 


46        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

statements  concerning  the  sources  of 
information  upon  which  he  has  drawn 
in  its  composition.  He  was  not  an 
eyewitness  of  the  events  in  the  gospel 
history.  He  does  not  say  that  any 
special  revelation  had  been  given  him 
concerning  these  things.  He  does  not 
write  at  the  direction  of  any  heavenly 
voice  or  at  the  dictation  of  any  super- 
natural visitant.  He  does  not  assert 
that  he  had  any  direct  or  peculiar  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  is 
anxious  to  authenticate  his  narrative 
and  to  establish  its  trustworthiness, 
and  he  gives  to  Theophilus  the  best 
reasons  he  has  for  believing  that  he 
has  written  the  certain  truth.  What 
does  he  say  ? 

He  says  that  he  writes  of  his  own 
accord,  and  the  only  credential  he 
presents  is  that  of  painstaking  inves- 
tigation of  all  the  sources  of  informa- 
tion at  his  command.  He  certifies, 
however,  that  the  result  of  this  inves- 
tigation is,  in  his  judgment,  a  fuller, 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        47 

more  accurate,  and  more  orderly  ac- 
count of  the  life  of  Jesus  than  any  of 
which  he  knew.  He  divides  the  chief 
sources  of  the  facts  he  has  written  into 
documentary  material  and  oral  testi- 
mony. There  had  been  many  at- 
tempts at  narrative  of  which  in  their 
manuscript  form  he  was  able  to  avail 
himself  and  upon  which  he  felt  he  had 
been  able  to  improve.  There  were 
also  many  eyewitnesses  still  living 
whom  he  was  able  to  interview  and 
who  delivered  to  him  their  first-hand 
information  concerning  many  things. 
Upon  the  basis  of  his  documents  and 
the  careful  recording  of  apostolic  tra- 
dition as  given  to  himself,  Luke  assures 
Theophilus  that  he  may  rely  upon  the 
certainty  of  the  things  he  here  finds 
recorded.  Luke  has  thus  given  all  the 
human  elements  that  make  for  his 
trustworthiness.  It  goes  without  say- 
ing that  he  also  received  the  spiritual 
illumination  common  to  all  writers  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures.     This  is  all  of 


48        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

the  gratuitous  information  furnished 
us  in  the  synoptic  Gospels  concerning 
their  composition.  If  we  learn  any- 
thing more,  it  must  be  by  the  study 
of  their  internal  characteristics  and 
peculiarities. 

2.  Minute  Research.  An  immense 
amount  of  work  has  been  done  in  this 
field.  As  a  single  example  we  might 
cite  the  Seminar  formed  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oxford  for  the  study  of  the 
synoptic  problem.  It  met  nine  times  a 
year  for  sixteen  years.  In  1910  the 
results  of  the  patient  and  united 
efforts  of  these  scholars  were  pub- 
lished in  the  volume  entitled  Studies 
in  the  Synoptic  Problem.  Other  vol- 
umes, like  Sir  J.  C.  Hawkins's  Horse 
Synopticae,  are  marvels  of  minute  re- 
search, and  represent  a  lifetime  of 
labor.  It  would  seem  safe  to  say  that 
every  possible  scrap  of  evidence  has 
been  accumulated  through  the  succes- 
sive generations  of  ungrudging  drudg- 
ery at  the  task. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        49 

Possibly  the  minute  pedantry  of  the 
ancient  rabbis  has  been  more  nearly 
reproduced  in  the  study  of  the  synop- 
tic problem  than  in  any  other  part  of 
our  Scriptures.  Those  ancient  scribes 
and  masters  of  the  law  knew  how 
many  verses  and  how  many  words 
and  how  many  letters  there  were  in 
every  book  of  their  Bible.  They  knew 
how  many  times  certain  words  oc- 
curred at  the  beginning  of  a  verse  and 
how  many  times  at  the  end  of  a  verse. 
They  knew  all  the  petty  phenomena  as 
well  as  the  weightier  matters  in  the 
law.  The  same  thing  has  come  to  be 
true  of  the  three  synoptic  Gospels. 
They  have  been  subjected  to  micro- 
scopic investigation.  Every  last  detail 
has  been  considered  in  its  bearing 
upon  the  solution  of  their  relationship. 

We  have  sometimes  thought  that 
the  erudition  displayed  in  the  study 
of  the  synoptic  problem  is  like  that 
of  the  scholastics  of  the  Dark  Ages. 
Milman  says  of  these,   "Latin  Chris- 


50        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

tianity  raised  up  those  vast  monu- 
ments of  theology  which  amaze  and 
appall  the  mind  with  the  enormous 
accumulation  of  intellectual  industry, 
ingenuity,  and  toil,  but  of  which  the 
sole  result  to  posterity  is  this  barren 
amazement."  An  amazing  amount  of 
scholarship  has  been  expended  upon 
the  synoptic  problem  in  the  last  two 
centuries,  and  he  would  be  a  very 
hopeful  man  who  would  think  that  the 
final  word  on  the  question  was  within 
sight  or  hearing  to-day.  Eminently 
learned  and  ingenious  men  have  had 
their  say  about  it.  They  have  been 
eminently  critical  too.  Their  investi- 
gations have  rivaled  those  of  the 
schoolmen  in  their  painstaking  mi- 
nuteness. They  have  been  thorough  in 
their  research  and  have  accumulated 
and  assorted  vast  quantities  of  facts. 
Many  of  them  have  been  very  assured 
in  the  announcement  of  their  results. 
They  have  held  opposing  and  mu- 
tually destructive  theories,  and  they 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        51 

have  fought,  bled,  and  died  in  their 
behalf.  Each  generation  has  quietly 
buried  the  combatants  of  the  pre- 
ceding generation,  and  in  many  cases 
their  theories  have  been  quietly  laid  to 
rest  with  them.  Probably  some  of 
these  theories  are  dead  beyond  all 
hope  of  a  resurrection. 

We  th'nk  that  some  things  are 
pretty  generally  agreed  upon  in  our 
day,  yet  there  are  very  strenuous  ad- 
vocates of  rival  hypotheses  still  in  the 
field.  No  man  who  volunteers  to  set- 
tle the  whole  question  for  us  can 
command  the  universal  suffrage  of 
scholars.  Frequently  he  represents  no 
one  but  himself.  Any  new  discovery 
of  manuscripts  may  revolutionize  the 
whole  aspect  of  things  at  any  time. 
Under  such  circumstances  no  one  can 
prophesy  with  any  degree  of  assurance 
what  the  verdict  of  the  next  genera- 
tion or  the  next  century  will  be. 


52        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

VI.  Theories 

At  present  the  problem  of  the  syn- 
optic Gospels  has  resolved  itself  into 
the  problem  of  the  sources  from  which 
the  synoptists  draw  the  material  for 
their  books.  The  two  main  sources 
are  those  suggested  in  that  preface  to 
the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  oral 
testimony,  and  written  documents; 
and  the  two  most  active  differing 
schools  of  thought  on  the  subject 
to-day  are,  first,  the  one  which  pins 
its  faith  largely,  if  not  wholly,  upon 
the  oral  tradition  as  accounting  for  the 
resemblances  and  the  differences  in 
the  synoptic  Gospels,  and,  second, 
the  one  which  pins  its  faith  largely,  if 
not  wholly,  upon  a  single  original 
document,  or  a  series  of  such,  as  an 
adequate  explanation  for  all  the  puz- 
zling features  which  the  Synoptics 
present. 

1.  Oral  Tradition.  Gieseler,  West- 
cott,  and  Wright  have  been  the  pro- 
tagonists for  the  oral  tradition  theory. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        53 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  assign  the 
critics  to  one  school  rather  than 
another,  since  each  is  apt  to  hold  an 
attitude  more  or  less  mediating  or 
more  or  less  independent,  but  pos- 
sibly Credner,  Lachmann,  Lange,  Eb- 
rard,  Thiersch,  Alford,  Renan,  Farrar, 
Schaff,Wendt,  Godet,  Gould,  and  Weiss 
might  be  classed  together  here. 

(1)  Authoritative  Teaching.  These 
critics  do  not  rule  out  the  use  of  all 
documents,  of  course,  but  they  main- 
tain that  before  any  documents  came 
into  existence  the  general  form  of  the 
gospel  narrative  had  become  fixed  in 
a  cycle  of  authoritative  oral  teaching. 
The  apostles  were  the  chief  authori- 
ties for  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  at 
first.  They  did  not  immediately  set 
about  the  writing  of  books.  They  did 
begin  their  preaching  at  once,  and  in  the 
beginning  they  confined  themselves 
largely  to  the  telling  of  the  historical 
facts  in  the  life  of  the  Redeemer.  As 
they  went  from  place  to  place  by  dint 


54        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

of  repetition  the  order  of  the  narra- 
tive tended  to  become  fixed,  and  even 
the  form  in  which  particular  incidents 
were  repeated  would  gradually  estab- 
lish itself  in  the  minds  and  on  the 
tongues  of  both  the  hearers  and  the 
speakers.  At  the  same  time  slightly- 
different  forms  of  reminiscence  might 
go  back  to  different  apostles  for  their 
original  authority. 

(2)  Oriental  Memory.  In  addition  to 
this  unquestioned  fact  that  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  must  have  preceded 
the  writing  of  any  Gospels,  we  are 
asked  to  remember  that  the  Oriental 
memory  was  trained  to  a  much  higher 
degree  than  we  are  apt  to  conceive 
possible  here  in  the  West.  It  was  the 
habit  in  the  schools  of  the  rabbis  for 
the  disciples  to  retain  all  of  the  teach- 
ing imparted  to  them  without  the 
aid  of  text-books  or  notes.  They 
were  expected  to  attend  closely,  to  re- 
member fully,  and  to  repeat  accu- 
rately.    The   traditions  were  handed 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        55 

down  from  generation  to  generation  in 
that  way.  It  has  also  been  suggested 
that  there  were  catechetical  schools 
among  the  Christians  from  a  very 
early  day,  and  that  systematic  in- 
struction was  imparted  to  all  converts 
in  such  schools.  It  is  stated  in  Luke's 
preface  that  Theophilus  had  been  in- 
structed in  this  catechetical  fashion. 
If  there  were  several  such  schools  and 
a  slightly  different  tradition  were,  pre- 
served, and  reproduced  in  each,  that 
would  go  far  to  help  toward  the  ex- 
planation of  the  synoptic  phenomena. 
(3)  Fragments  of  Writing.  Remem- 
bering that  the  preaching  of  the  apos- 
tles was  largely  historical  in  the 
beginning,  and  that  they  were  the 
chief  authorities  for  the  account  of 
the  words  and  the  works  of  the  Lord, 
and  remembering  the  Oriental  reten- 
tiveness  of  memory  which  would  tend 
to  fix  the  form,  not  only  of  the  story 
as  told,  but  as  repeated  by  others,  we 
have  the  basis  for  a  belief  that  a  par- 


56        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

ticular  selection  of  incidents  and  say- 
ings and  a  particular  form  for  their 
presentation  would  establish  itself  in 
Christian  circles  before  anyone  would 
attempt  to  put  any  of  these  things 
into  writing.  Such  attempts  would 
surely  be  made  in  time.  In  all  proba- 
bility some  of  the  briefer  sayings 
would  be  written  first,  then  some 
collection  of  these  sayings  would  be 
made,  then  some  account  of  the  mir- 
acles would  be  committed  to  writing, 
then  the  longer  discourses,  and  last 
among  these  the  eschatological  proph- 
ecies. These  fragments  would  then  be 
united  by  some  hand  or  by  several 
hands  into  the  first  attempts  at  a 
continuous  sketch  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
The  best  of  these  would  be  used  by 
our  evangelists. 

The  parallels  in  the  Synoptics  would 
thus  be  explained  by  the  more  or  less 
fluid,  while  yet  more  or  less  fixed, 
form  of  the  primitive  oral  tradition, 
and   the   minute   or   more   important 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM       57 

variations  would  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  most  credible  witnesses 
will  differ  more  or  less  in  giving  the 
account  of  the  same  matters,  and  the 
best-trained  memories  will  be  imper- 
fect at  some  points,  while,  at  the  same 
time,  having  made  due  allowance  for 
the  differences  in  the  oral  or  written 
sources  of  information  open  to  each 
evangelist,  we  must  still  leave  room 
for  his  personal  preferences  and  tastes 
in  the  selection  and  the  shaping  of  the 
material.  It  was  the  patent  superi- 
ority of  our  synoptic  Gospels  to  all 
of  their  predecessors  which  insured 
their  preservation  and  supremacy  in 
the  Church  while  their  models,  or 
forerunners,  perished. 

Stated  generally,  this  seems  like  a 
very  satisfactory  theory  of  the  com- 
position of  the  synoptic  Gospels.  It 
is  only  when  we  come  to  the  applica- 
tion of  it  in  detail  that  doubts  arise  in 
the  minds  of  many  scholars  as  to 
whether  we  can  rely  upon  it  as  an 


58        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

adequate  hypothesis.  If  it  is  to  be 
trusted  at  all,  why  does  it  not  go 
farther?  If  retentive  memories  ac- 
count for  much,  why  do  they  not 
account  for  more  ?  If  oral  tradition  be 
supposed  to  fix  some  things,  why  did 
it  not  fix  others  ?  The  present  genera- 
tion of  critics  seems  to  be  swinging 
away  from  any  rigid  adherence  to  the 
oral  tradition  theory  and  to  be  con- 
cluding that  the  more  hopeful  line  of 
research  will  be  that  of  the  recon- 
struction of  original  documents.  Har- 
nack  is  at  present  leading  the  way 
in  this  direction. 

2.  Documentary  Sources.  Lessing  and 
Eichhorn  made  the  first  investigation 
into  the  Urkunden,  or  original  docu- 
ments, lying  back  of  our  synoptic 
Gospels.  Eichhorn  began  by  positing 
a  single  Ur-evanyelium,  or  primitive 
Gospel,  written  in  Aramaic  about  the 
time  of  the  stoning  of  Stephen;  but, 
having  embarked  upon  the  high  seas 
of  adventure  along  this  line,  he  kept 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        59 

discovering  new  sources  until  the  very 
profusion  and  wantonness  and  arbi- 
trariness of  his  inventions  discredited 
the  whole  performance.  He  made  a 
great  sensation  in  his  day,  even  more 
than  Harnack  has  made  in  our  day; 
but  no  one  gives  much  heed  to  his 
conjectures  now.  Schleiermacher  sug- 
gested the  Logia,  a  collection  of  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  and  a  series  of  more 
or  less  extensive  compilations  of  nar- 
ratives, leading  up  to  a  proto-Mark 
and  then  to  our  Synoptics.  Weisse  was 
content  to  presuppose  the  Logia  with 
our  canonical  Mark  as  the  basis  of 
the  other  two  Synoptics.  All  of  the 
Tubingen  school  were  disposed  to  be- 
lieve in  a  primitive  Aramaic  source  of 
our  Gospels,  and  they  usually  de- 
clared that  our  Matthew  was  a  com- 
bination of  a  more  liberal  document 
with  this  source,  and  Luke  was  a 
Pauline  protest  supplemented  from 
Ebionite  sources,  and  Mark  compiled 
his  narrative  from  both  of  these.    The 


60        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

general  positions  of  the  Tubingen 
school  have  been  relegated  to  the 
theological  scrap-heap  by  this  time, 
and  their  contributions  to  the  discus- 
sion of  the  synoptic  problem  carry  as 
little  weight  as  any  of  them. 

We  will  put  down  in  a  single  para- 
graph some  sample  conclusions  of 
some  modern  authorities  as  to  the 
sources  of  the  synoptic  Gospels  and 
the  order  of  their  composition.  Holtz- 
mann  believes  that  there  was:  (1)  A 
proto-Mark,  the  original  form  of 
Mark's  Gospel.  (2)  The  Logia,  a  col- 
lection of  the  sayings  of  Jesus.  (3) 
Our  canonical  Mark.  (4)  Matthew. 
(5)  Luke.  He  thinks  that  the  last 
two  were  founded  upon  the  first  and 
the  second,  and  used  additional  ma- 
terials. Weiss  posits  the  order  as 
follows:  (1)  The  Logia.  (2)  An  orig- 
inal Gospel  according  to  Matthew, 
made  up  of  the  Logia  and  added  in- 
cidents. (3)  Mark,  a  recollection  of 
Peter's    preaching    and    as    much    of 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM       61 

Matthew's  discourses  as  would  har- 
monize with  his  plans.  (4)  Our  canon- 
ical Matthew,  founded  on  Mark  and 
the  Logia.  (5)  Luke,  founded  on 
Mark,  the  Logia,  and  other  sources. 
Zahn  makes  the  order:  (1)  Matthew 
in  Hebrew.  (2)  Mark.  (3)  Luke. 
(4)  Matthew  in  Greek.  Julicher 
thinks  that  the  earliest  sources  were 
our  Mark  and  the  Logia  of  Matthew, 
and  that  our  Matthew  and  Luke  use 
these  two  and  also  other  sources. 

Harnack  has  carried  his  researches 
into  the  history  of  the  early  Church 
back  into  the  time  of  the  composition 
of  the  Gospels,  and  he  has  chosen  to 
use  the  term  Quelle  (Source)  or  its 
abbreviation,  Q,  instead  of  the  old 
term  Logia:  and  he  thinks  that  Mark 
and  Q  are  the  two  and  the  only  two 
common  sources  for  Matthew  and 
Luke.  He  has  undertaken  to  recon- 
struct Q  with  genuine  German  thor- 
oughness and  the  usual  German 
subjective    arbitrariness.      Our    Wes- 


62        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

leyan  James  Hope  Moulton  and  our 
American  Benjamin  Wisner  Bacon 
have  shown  good  reason  why  we 
should  hesitate  to  accept  without  ques- 
tion his  conclusions  along  this  line. 
Wellhausen  and  Weiss  have  offered 
pertinent  objections  to  Harnack's  gen- 
eralizations, and  have  gone  into  still 
more  minute  and  even  microscopic 
investigation  of  supposable  sources. 
The  dominant  interest  at  present 
seems  to  lie  in  work  along  these  lines. 
In  our  judgment,  the  farther  it  is 
carried  the  less  confidence  it  will 
command  in  both  the  expert  and  the 
lay  mind. 

VII.  Conclusions 

What  may  we  conclude  on  the 
basis  of  the  facts  now  presented  ? 

1.  The  synoptic  problem  is  no  nearer 
a  solution  to-day  than  it  has  been  at 
any  previous  time  in  the  history  of 
the  Church.    We  have  more  facts  in 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        63 

hand  than  scholarship  has  been  able 
to  accumulate  before  this  generation, 
but  these  facts  only  serve  to  increase 
the  intricacies  of  the  problem,  and 
they  do  not  seem  to  insure  any  greater 
unanimity  of  conclusion  on  the  part  of 
the  scholarly  world.  Without  some 
added  discoveries  of  documents  in 
Egypt  or  elsewhere — a  rather  remote 
possibility — there  is  little  or  no  reason 
to  think  that  any  sufficient  solution  of 
the  synoptic  problem  is  possible.  In 
details  the  history  of  the  composition 
of  our  synoptic  Gospels  is  likely  to  re- 
main a  mystery  forever.  However, 
there  are  some  general  conclusions 
upon  which  a  majority  of  the  critics 
may  now  be  said  to  agree. 

2.  The  oral  hypothesis  has  much  of 
truth  in  it.  Oral  narratives  came 
first  in  order,  and  they  would  have  a 
tendency  to  take  a  fixed  form.  How- 
ever, this  hypothesis  alone  can  never 
give  more  than  general  help  in  the 
consideration  of  the  problem.    It  fails 


64        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

in  adequacy  whenever  we  try  to  apply 
it  to  the  minute  details  of  variations 
in  the  Synoptics.  In  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica  Schmiedel  brands  it  as 
an  asylum  ignorantice  and  an  asylum 
orihodoxice,  and  his  feeling  is  shared 
by  most  students  of  the  subject  to-day. 
The  facts  must  be  faced,  and  the 
facts  point  to  written  sources  as  well 
as  an  oral  tradition. 

3.  If  we  feel  ourselves  forced  to  as- 
sume that  written  documents  he  be- 
hind our  canonical  Gospels,  and  either 
that  any  of  them  borrowed  from  others 
or  that  they  borrowed  from  any  com- 
mon sources,  we  must  still  face  the 
facts.  These  seem  to  compel  us  to 
the  conclusion  that  our  synoptists  felt 
free  to  add  to  or  omit  from  or  trans- 
pose or  otherwise  change  their  sources 
as  they  thought  best.  If  this  seem  to 
anyone  irreverent  or  impossible,  we 
can  simply  appeal  to  the  facts.  The 
phenomena  point  to  written  sources, 
yet   the   synoptists   give  us   different 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        65 

genealogies  of  Jesus,  different  forms 
for  the  so-called  Lord's  Prayer,  dif- 
ferent accounts  of  the  institution  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  different  forms  of 
the  inscription  on  the  cross,  and  differ- 
ent reports  of  the  same  discourses. 
These  differences  are  found  on  every 
page  and  in  every  part  of  their  narra- 
tives. How  far  they  are  due  to  differ- 
ent documents  or  to  individual  prefer- 
ences in  dealing  with  the  same  docu- 
ment who  will  be  able  to  decide  for  us  ? 
4.  The  Gospel  according  to  Mark  is 
probably  the  oldest  of  the  Synoptics, 
and  both  Matthew  and  Luke  may 
have  made  use  of  it  in  the  composition 
of  their  Gospels.  If  we  grant  this, 
let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  our 
canonical  Mark  had  not  been  pre- 
served to  our  time,  and  that,  never- 
theless, ninety-three  per  cent  of  its 
contents  had  been  incorporated  into 
our  canonical  Matthew  and  Luke,  and 
that  modern  critics  had  decided  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  must  have  had  a 


66       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

common  source  from  which  they  had 
drawn  this  common  material  and  some 
of  the  more  adventurous  among  them 
had  undertaken  to  reconstruct  Mark 
out  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  what  de- 
gree of  success  could  we  expect  to 
attend  their  efforts  ?  They  might  at- 
tain to  some  general  approximation  to 
the  appearance  of  our  canonical  Mark, 
but  in  multitudes  of  details  their  con- 
jectures would  differ  with  each  other; 
and  that  any  one  of  them  would  repro- 
duce our  Mark  as  it  really  is,  with  per- 
fect exactness  of  chronology  and  phrase- 
ology, would  be  beyond  the  wildest 
reaches  of  possibility.  Yet  Harnack 
and  others  have  attempted  the  some- 
what similar  task  of  the  reconstruction 
of  Q,  and  whatever  conclusions  they 
may  publish  to  the  world  will  be  inter- 
esting and  instructive  and  yet  always 
unsatisfactory.  Q  in  its  entirety  will  no 
more  be  attainable  by  any  critic  among 
us  than  Mark  would  have  been  under 
the  suppositions  we  have  suggested. 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        67 

5.  There  may  have  been  an  original 
collection  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  the 
so-called  Logia,  and  it  may  have 
been  extant  both  in  an  Aramaic  form 
and  in  a  Greek  translation.  Then,  if 
one  or  both  of  these  versions  were  used 
by  our  synoptists  the  two  versions 
would  help  to  account  for  some  of  the 
verbal  identities  and  some  of  the  varia- 
tions of  translation.  The  exact  form 
and  extent  and  content  of  this  original 
Quelle,  or  Source,  will  be  open  to  con- 
jecture and  never  can  be  assured  with 
our  present  sources  of  information. 

6.  There  may  have  been,  and  there 
probably  were,  many  fragments  of 
material  used  by  our  synoptists,  the 
exact  number  and  nature  of  which  no 
man  can  determine  for  us  now. 

7.  Mark  may  have  known  and  used 
the  Logia,  or  Q. 

8.  Matthew  probably  did  not  know 
or  use  the  Gospel  written  by  Luke, 
and  Luke  probably  did  not  know  or 
use  our  canonical  Matthew. 


68        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

9.  In  our  synoptic  Gospels  we  have 
no  literally  inerrant  or  infallible  record 
of  the  details  either  of  the  teachings 
or  the  doings  of  Jesus.  They  do  give 
us  a  substantially  accurate  and  suffi- 
cient account  of  these  things.  Their 
purpose  was  practical  rather  than  pe- 
dantic; it  was  religious  rather  than 
rigidly  historical.  They  did  not  care- 
fully copy  texts.  They  were  not  par- 
ticular about  minute  details.  They 
intended  to  give,  and  they  did  give, 
a  faithful  and  serviceable  picture  of 
the  man  Jesus,  his  words  and  his 
works.  In  all  the  great  essentials  of 
the  narrative  they  agree.  The  per- 
sonality they  set  forth  is  the  same  and 
is  unmistakable  in  each  of  their  books. 
They  were  not  punctilious  about  little 
matters  of  time  and  place.  They  pos- 
sibly had  no  ideal  in  their  thought  of 
verbal  accuracy.  They  did  have  the 
Ideal  Personality  in  mind  and  they 
sought  to  interpret  that  Personality  to 
their  generation  with  all  the  aids  they 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        69 

could  summon,  and  their  success  was 
such  that  it  drove  all  competitors  from 
the  field;  and  it  has  satisfied  the  re- 
ligious needs  of  the  world  from  their 
day  to  our  own. 

We  have  a  fourth  Gospel,  and  we 
are  thankful  that  it  is  so  different  from 
the  synoptists  that  it  may  be  consid- 
ered a  wholly  independent  attempt  at 
the  portraiture  of  the  personality  of 
Jesus;  and  it  suggests  how  inexhaust- 
ible that  personality  was,  and  what 
different  impressions  it  must  have 
made  on  different  men.  We  are  thank- 
ful for  all  the  differences  there  are  in 
the  synoptists,  as  far  as  these  bear 
testimony  to  this  same  multiform  im- 
pressiveness.  We  are  thankful  to  be- 
lieve that  the  substantial  historicity  of 
the  synoptic  narratives  has  not  been 
shaken  by  any  research,  and  that  it 
has  approved  itself  through  all  the 
Christian  centuries. 


70       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

VIII.  The  Peculiar  Value  of  Mark 
All  of  the  gospel  writers  have  the 
same  story  to  tell.  Yet  how  differently 
they  tell  it!  We  have  seen  that  the 
reason  for  the  difference  in  their 
narratives  is  to  be  found,  not  in  the 
Subject  whom  they  portray,  nor  in  the 
inspiration  which  they  received  from 
him  and  his  words  and  his  life,  but  in 
themselves.  It  is  the  same  white 
light  refracted  through  many  prisms. 
It  is  the  same  white  life  reflected 
through  different  minds.  Each  writer 
has  his  individual  idiosyncrasies.  Each 
man  has  his  personal  prejudices  and 
preferences.  Each  man  has  his  par- 
ticular impressions  and  his  peculiar 
experiences.  All  of  these  things  in- 
fluence his  thought  and  his  writing. 

Modern  scholars  are  pretty  well 
agreed  that  among  the  Synoptics  Mark 
comes  first  in  order  of  time.  The 
second  Gospel  represents  most  nearly 
the  primitive  evangelic  tradition.  It 
gives  us  the  most  simple  and  direct 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM       71 

and  living  impression  of  the  words  and 
the  works  of  the  Lord.  It  has  the 
vividness  of  personal  portraiture.  It 
gives  us  a  sense  of  reality  such  as 
Peter's  own  reminiscences  could  not 
have  failed  to  have.  If  the  authority 
of  the  great  apostle  stands  behind  this 
narrative,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find 
that  it  has  all  the  self-evidencing  ver- 
ity of  life  itself. 

Any  comparison  between  Matthew 
and  Mark  will  bring  out  this  charac- 
teristic of  Mark  very  clearly.  The 
second  Gospel  mentions  the  natural 
human  emotions  in  the  experience  of 
Jesus  in  such  descriptive  phrases  as 
Mark  3.  5,  having  looked  round  about 
on  them  with  anger,  being  grieved; 
and  1.  41,  having  been  moved  with 
compassion;  and  1.  43,  having  sternly 
charged  him;  and  3.  21,  they  said,  He 
is  beside  himself;  and  6.  6,  he  mar- 
veled; and  8.  12,  having  groaned  in 
spirit;  and  10.  14,  he  was  moved  with 
indignation;  and  10.  21,  having  looked 


72        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

upon  him,  he  loved  him;  and  many 
others  like  them.  All  of  these  emo- 
tional experiences  of  Jesus  are  omitted 
in  Matthew's  account.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  a  growing  sense  of 
reverence  for  Jesus  caused  Matthew 
to  hesitate  to  chronicle  the  fact  that 
Jesus  had  shown  the  same  emotions 
with  ordinary  humanity  upon  these 
occasions.  At  any  rate,  we  feel  that 
in  Mark's  narrative  we  come  closer 
to  the  real  Jesus,  and  that  we  see  him 
as  he  is. 

Alexander  Balmain  Bruce  would 
seem  to  be  justified,  therefore,  in  his 
statement:  "The  realism  of  Mark 
makes  for  its  historicity.  It  is  a 
guarantee  of  first-hand  reports  such  as 
one  might  expect  from  Peter.  Peter 
reverences  his  risen  Lord  as  much  as 
Luke  or  any  other  man;  but  he  is  one 
of  the  men  who  have  been  with  Jesus, 
and  he  speaks  from  indelible  impres- 
sions made  on  his  eye  and  ear,  while 
Luke    reports    at    second-hand    from 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        73 

written  accounts  for  the  most  part. 
.  .  .  Mark  is  the  archaic  Gospel,  writ- 
ten under  the  inspiration,  not  of 
prophecy,  like  Matthew,  or  of  present 
reverence,  like  Luke,  but  of  fondly 
cherished  past  memories.  In  it  we 
get  nearest  to  the  human  personality 
of  Jesus  in  all  its  originality  and  power, 
and  as  colored  by  the  time  and  place. 
And  the  character  of  Jesus  loses  noth- 
ing by  the  realistic  representation. 
Nothing  is  told  that  needed  to  be  hid. 
The  homeliest  facts  recorded  by  the 
evangelist  only  increase  our  interest 
and  our  admiration.  One  who  desires 
to  see  the  Jesus  of  history  truly  should 
con  well  the  pages  of  Mark  first,  then 
pass  on  to  Matthew  and  Luke." 

As  the  earliest  Gospel,  written  when 
the  facts  were  yet  fresh  in  Peter's 
memory;  as  the  Gospel  resting  upon 
Peter's  authority,  the  authority  of  an 
eyewitness;  as  the  Gospel  which  seems 
freest  from  all  philosophical  and  theo- 
logical prepossessions,  the  second  Gos- 


74        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

pel  is  generally  recognized  by  modern 
scholarship  as  the  most  authentic  and 
the  most  authoritative  of  the  evan- 
gelical narratives.  There  was  a  time 
when  it  was  the  most  neglected  and  the 
least  valued  of  all  the  Gospels.  Now  it 
ranks  before  all  others  as  an  historical 
source  and  a  reliable  basis  for  all 
further  study. 


IX.  The  Peculiar  Value  of 
Matthew 

Renan  said  that  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  was  the  most  im- 
portant book  of  Christendom,  the 
most  important  book  which  has  ever 
been  written.  We  find  this  estimate 
repeated  in  more  recent  authorities. 
Julicher  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
New  Testament  says:  "Certainly,  Mat- 
thew has  become  the  most  important 
book  ever  written.  ...  It  has  exerted 
its    important     influence     upon    the 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM       75 

Church  because  it  was  written  by  a 
man  who  bore  within  himself  the 
spirit  of  the  growing  Church  universal, 
and  who,  free  from  all  party  interests, 
knew  how  to  write  a  catholic  Gospel; 
that  is  to  say,  a  Gospel  destined  and 
fitted  for  all  manner  of  believers." 

It  is  this  Catholicism  of  spirit  which 
has  impressed  a  still  more  recent 
writer,  and  has  led  him  to  a  similar 
conclusion  concerning  the  relative  im- 
portance of  this  Gospel.  Von  Soden 
In  his  History  of  Early  Christian 
Literature  says  of  it:  "It  points  on- 
ward to  the  development  toward 
Catholicism;  hence  it  became  the  chief 
Gospel,  the  work  which  took  the  lead 
in  guiding  this  development,  and  in  so 
far  no  book  ever  written  is  of  greater 
historical  importance."  Others  have 
spoken  in  equally  unmeasured  terms  of 
praise  of  this  great  Gospel.  Keim,  in 
his  Jesus  of  Nazara,  after  calling  this 
Gospel  "a  grand  old  granitic  book," 
says  that  we  find  in  it  "the  simple 


76        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

grandeur  of  monumental  writing,  an- 
tique history,  immeasurably  effective 
because  it  is  nature  itself,  because  it 
does  not  aim  at  being  effective." 

Dean  Farrar  repeats  this  in  a  para- 
graph of  characteristic  eloquence.  He 
declares  that  "the  book  carries  with 
it  internal  evidence  of  its  own  sacred- 
ness.  How  could  the  unlettered  Gali- 
lsean  publican  have  written  unaided  a 
book  so  'immeasurably  effective'?  How 
could  he  have  sketched  out  a  Tragedy 
which,  by  the  simple  divineness  of  its 
theme,  dwarfs  the  greatest  of  all 
earthly  tragedies  ?  How  could  he  have 
composed  a  Passion-music  which,  from 
the  flutelike  strains  of  its  sweet  over- 
ture to  the  'multitudinous  chorale'  of 
its  close,  accumulates  with  unflagging 
power  the  mightiest  elements  of  pathos 
and  of  grandeur?  Why  would  the 
world  lose  less  from  the  loss  of  Hamlet, 
and  the  Divina  Commedia,  and  the 
Paradise  Lost  together,  than  from  the 
loss  of  this  brief  book  of  the  despised 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        ft 

Galilsean?  Because  this  book  is  due 
not  to  genius,  but  to  revelation;  not 
to  art,  but  to  truth.  The  words  of  the 
man  are  nothing,  save  as  they  are 
the  record  of  the  manifestation  of 
God.  The  greatness  of  the  work  lay, 
not  in  the  writer,  but  in  Him  of  whom 
he  wrote;  and  in  this,  that  without  art, 
without  style,  without  rhetoric,  in 
perfect  and  unconscious  simplicity,  he 
sets  forth  the  facts  as  they  were.  He  is 
immeasurably  effective'  because  he 
nowhere  aims  at  effectiveness.  He 
thought  of  nothing  less.  Though  we 
find  in  his  book  'the  simple  grandeur 
of  monumental  writing/  he  brought  to 
his  work  but  three  intellectual  endow- 
ments: the  love  of  truth,  an  exquisite 
sensibility  to  the  mercy  of  God  and 
the  misery  of  man,  and  a  deep  sense 
of  that  increasing  purpose  which  runs 
through  the  ages.  And  thus  endowed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  he  has 
given  us  this  unique  history,  so  gen- 
uinely human,  and  therefore,  in  all  its 


78       THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

parts,  so  genuinely  divine:  a  mighty, 
because  a  simply  truthful,  record  of 
the  words  and  deeds  of  Him  who  was 
both  God  and  man." 

The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew 
is  the  fitting  link  between  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testaments  in  our  canon. 
It  is  the  Gospel  of  Fulfilment.  It 
builds  upon  Old  Testament  founda- 
tions. At  every  turn  it  introduces  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies.  It  shows 
how  the  historical  and  the  ritual  and 
the  legal  types  have  all  been  fulfilled 
in  Jesus.  It  proves  that  Jesus  was  the 
promised  Messias  and  the  rightful 
King  of  the  Jews.  At  the  same  time 
it  is  the  Gospel  of  hope  for  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  its  universal  outlook  has  led 
the  authorities  from  whom  we  have 
quoted  to  declare  that  it  more  than 
any  other  book  prepared  the  way  for 
the  catholic,  the  united  Jewish-Gentile 
Church.  The  systematic  arrangement 
of  its  material  has  given  us  the  great 
miracle  groups  and  the  great  parable 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM       79 

groups  and  some  of  the  great  dis- 
courses of  Jesus.  The  world  could  not 
spare  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  as 
Matthew  alone  has  recorded  it.  We 
prize  the  birth  and  infancy  history  of 
the  first  chapters,  and  the  parables  of 
the  tares,  the  hid  treasure,  the  pearl 
of  great  price,  and  the  ten  virgins  and 
the  talents,  and  the  two  sons,  and 
other  peculiar  portions  of  this  narra- 
tive. The  Gospel  has  been  of  incal- 
culable blessing  to  all  the  nations,  and 
it  will  be  such  to  the  end  of  time. 


X.  The  Peculiar  Value 
of  Luke 

In  all  probability  Luke  was  a  Gen- 
tile. Then  the  third  Gospel  is  a 
Gospel  for  the  Gentiles,  written  by  a 
Gentile.  Luke  also  wrote  the  book  of 
Acts;  but  all  the  other  books  in  our 
Bible,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New  Testament,  were  written 


80        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

fay  Jews.  Its  authors  were  all  of  the 
Hebrew  race,  and  they  all  had  more  or 
less  of  the  Hebrew  prejudice  and  point 
of  view.  Jesus  was  a  Jew.  All  of  the 
twelve  apostles  were  Jews.  All  of  the 
first  churches  were  composed  wholly  of 
Jews.  Even  Paul,  the  champion  of 
the  Gentiles,  was  himself  a  Jew;  and 
he  never  wholly  freed  himself  from  the 
results  of  his  rabbinical  training  and 
thought.  If  Luke  had  not  written  his 
books,  all  of  Gentile  Christendom 
would  have  been  dependent  forever 
upon  Jewish  sources  for  the  whole  of 
its  record  of  the  revelation  of  God 
unto  men.  In  the  third  Gospel  and 
in  the  book  of  Acts  we  see  how  the 
life  of  Jesus  and  the  fortunes  of  the 
early  Christian  Church  appear  from  a 
Gentile  point  of  view.  We  Gentiles 
will  always  be  glad  that  we  have  one 
Gospel  written  for  us  by  one  of 
ourselves. 

What    a    Gospel    of    grace    it    is 
throughout!     In  that  first  sermon  in 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        81 

the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  Jesus  read 
for  his  text  from  the  prophet  Isaiah, 

The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me, 
Because  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tid- 
ings to  the  poor: 
He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release  to  the 

captives, 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  blind, 
To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 
To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord. 

At  that  point  we  read  that  Jesus  closed 
the  book  and  gave  it  back  to  the 
attendant.  It  was  a  strange  place  to 
quit  in  his  reading.  He  was  in  the 
middle  of  a  sentence.  He  did  not 
read  the  whole  of  the  prophecy.  He 
did  not  even  finish  the  paragraph. 
He  did  not  even  read  to  a  period. 
There  was  much  of  comfort  and  of 
good  news  and  of  blessing  in  the  re- 
mainder of  the  sentence  and  of  the 
paragraph  and  of  the  prophecy.  Jesus 
stopped  short  at  that  point.  Surely, 
it  must  have  been  with  conscious  in- 
tention. Surely  it  must  have  been  with 
some  good  reason.    We  look  for  that 


82        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

reason,  and  we  find  that  the  next  follow- 
ing words  were,  "And  to  proclaim  the 
day  of  vengeance  of  our  God."  When 
the  eyes  of  Jesus  fell  upon  those  words 
he  closed  the  book.  He  would  not 
read  them.  His  message  was  a  mes- 
sage of  grace  and  not  a  proclamation 
of  vengeance.  He  would  rather  leave 
the  sentence  unfinished  than  to  leave 
any  doubt  in  any  mind  as  to  that  fact. 
He  went  on  to  preach  his  good  tidings, 
and  we  read  that  all  bare  him  witness, 
and  wondered  at  the  words  of  grace 
which  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth 
(4.  22). 

Luke  does  not  wonder.  He  seems  to 
think  that  only  words  of  grace  would 
be  natural  to  Jesus.  He  pictures  the 
Master  as  the  gracious  Redeemer, 
gracious  both  in  matter  of  speech  and 
in  manner  of  life.  How  gracious  Jesus 
was  to  that  woman  who  was  a  sinner! 
He  was  even  more  gracious  to  her 
than  she  was  grateful  to  him.  Was 
the  grace  of  God  ever  set  forth  with 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        83 

such  pathetic  impressiveness  as  in 
that  pearl  of  all  the  parables,  where 
we  read  that  while  the  returning 
prodigal  was  yet  a  great  way  off  his 
father  saw  him  and  ran  to  meet  him, 
and  then  celebrated  his  return  with 
the  best  robe  and  a  fitting  feast  and 
music  and  dancing  ?  The  grace  of  the 
dancers  was  only  the  faintest  symbol 
of  the  grace  in  that  father's  heart. 
No  gracious  act  on  earth  can  do  more 
than  typify  the  heavenly  Father's  ex- 
haustless  grace.  Can  we  imagine  the 
grace  in  the  manner  of  Jesus  and  in 
his  tone  as  he  spoke  that  parable  ? 

How  gracious  he  was  to  the  ten 
lepers,  although  one  of  them  was  an 
alien  Samaritan!  How  gracious  he 
was  to  Zacchaeus,  promising  salvation 
to  his  house,  although  he  had  been 
a  defrauding  and  despicable  publican, 
as  little  and  mean  in  his  spirit  as  he 
was  little  and  mean  in  his  stature. 
How  gracious  he  was  to  Mary  when 
Martha's  short  temper  had  snapped 


84        THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

and  she  was  ready  to  ask  the  Master 
to  join  her  in  scolding  the  remissness 
of  the  younger  girl!  Jesus  was  as 
gracious  to  her  as  her  sister  was  in- 
dignant with  her.  How  gracious  he 
was  to  that  dying  thief!  He  made 
response  to  that  thief's  faith  with  the 
promise,  "To-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
me  in  paradise."  Bossuet  comments 
upon  this  promise  as  follows:  "To-day 
— what  speed! — with  me — what  com- 
panionship!— in  paradise.  .  .  .  what 
rest!"  Jesus  had  consorted  with  all 
classes  of  people  here  upon  the  earth. 
He  had  been  no  respecter  of  persons 
during  his  ministry.  He  went  into 
paradise  hand  in  hand  with  a  crucified 
thief.  His  graciousness  will  be  his 
characteristic  through  all  eternity  to 
come.  As  it  was  manifest  to  all 
alike  in  the  days  of  his  ministry,  it 
will  be  manifest  to  all  alike  for- 
evermore. 

All  of  these  incidents  to  which  we 
have  referred  are  recorded  by  Luke 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM        85 

alone.  He  has  eighteen  parables  not 
found  in  the  other  Gospels.  Some  of 
them — the  good  Samaritan,  the  prod- 
igal son,  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican 
— we  could  ill  afford  to  lose.  Those 
wonderful  first  chapters  are  unparal- 
leled too.  There  are  narratives  like 
that  of  the  walk  to  Emmaus  which  are 
among  the  most  precious  portions  of 
Gospel  history  to  us.  We  have  more 
information  concerning  the  prayer  life 
of  Jesus  in  this  Gospel  than  in  any 
other,  and  it  has  more  of  the  spirit 
of  praise.  We  think  that  the  Gospel 
according  to  John  is  the  greatest  of 
all  the  Gospels;  but  if  we  had  to 
choose  among  the  Synoptics,  we  would 
prefer  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke. 
We  need  not  make  such  a  choice, 
since  we  have  them  all.  Each  has  its 
peculiar  value,  and  all  together  furnish 
us  with  an  adequate  and  satisfying 
portrait  of  the  Christ. 

Matthew    gives    us    the   marvelous 
words   of   Jesus.      Mark   records   the 


86         THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM 

marvelous  works  of  Jesus.  Luke  re- 
veals the  secret  depths  of  his  human 
heart.  John  reveals  the  secret  heights 
of  his  divine  communion  and  life. 
Matthew  pictures  the  king,  Mark  the 
servant,  Luke  the  brother-man,  and 
John  the  eternal  Lord.  Goethe  said 
of  them,  "I  hold  the  Gospels  genuine 
through  and  through,  for  there  is 
apparent  in  them  the  reflected  glory 
of  the  majesty  which  went  out  from 
the  person  of  Christ,  and  which  is 
divine  in  its  nature,  as  the  divine  only 
once  was  manifested  here  upon  earth." 

XL  Bibliography 

For  more  detailed  study  those  in- 
terested should  consult  Rushbrooke's 
Synopticon,  Wright's  A  Synopsis  of 
the  Gospels  in  Greek,  Thompson's  The 
Synoptic  Gospels,  Westcott's  Intro- 
duction to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels, 
Wright's  Composition  of  the  Four 
Gospels,  Carpenter's  The  First  Three 


THE  SYNOPTIC  PROBLEM         87 

Gospels,  Their  Origin  and  Relations, 
Jolley's  The  Synoptic  Problem  for 
English  Readers,  Burkitt's  The  Gospel 
History  and  Its  Transmission,  Robin- 
son's The  Study  of  the  Gospels,  Pe- 
trie's  The  Growth  of  the  Gospels,  Sir 
John  C.  Hawkins's  Horse  Synopticse, 
the  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem 
by  Members  of  the  University  of 
Oxford,  the  articles  on  The  Gospels  by 
Stanton  in  Hastings's  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible  and  by  Schmiedel  in  Cheyne's 
Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  Harnack's  Say- 
ings of  Jesus  and  Luke  the  Physician, 
and  the  Date  of  the  Acts  and  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  and  the  Introduc- 
tions of  Holtzmann,  Julicher,  Weiss, 
Zahn,  and  others. 


Date  Due 

^^fMATfilk^-^ 

i  tiniiiinr  11  if 

"WMa** ■ 1 

&*"' 

pi 

,5"**"* 

■ 
tUr-toJiVi"1-"  ■''- r'n — r 

<i> 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

BS2569.4.H414 
The  synoptic  problem 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 

II 


1   1012  00034  0176 


